With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

It didn’t exactly stop the presses. But at least it made the back pages: China will cut its coal use to 65 percent of its electricity generation by year-end instead of by 2017, which is nearly 1 percent less than in 2013.

Regardless of China’s energy diet, it still has an insatiable appetite for the fuel source, consuming 47 percent of all coal and as much as the rest of the world combined, says the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And, for sure, China is trying to industrialize its economy and coal is its path of least of resistance. But it’s not its only choice.

For its part, China also has a goal of generating 15 percent of its electricity from green energy by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030. But it will still need other carbon-intensive fuels, which include coal and natural gas. To this end, the United States is well positioned to lend a hand — “solutions,” by all accounts, which are imperfect but which take the sting out of burning fossil fuels straight up.

China Backpacking Trip (Photo credit: fortherock)

Given the expected jump in coal use, should the United States send its advanced coal technologies around the globe and specifically to the Asian nations where the demand for it will remain high? Or, should it export part of its newfound shale gas wealth, which is cleaner than coal? Or, should it sell the hydraulic fracturing technologies to others so that they can can just plumb the gas themselves?

“We will end up being able to export all those items,” says Tim Profeta, director of the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University, in an interview. “This is not an either/or choice in terms of the private market, which will ship goods and services to where they get the best price.”

Reducing China’s pollution levels will remain a challenge. But the professor says that the ultimate answer will be technologically driven — aided by a public sector that places a cost on carbon emissions. Most corporate executives, in fact, see a future where carbon has a price, all of which has created a pipeline for the required technologies to address the issues.

Consider that AppleApple’s Chief Executive Tim Cook just told some of his stockholders who are climate change deniers/skeptics to take a hike. When the National Center for Public Policy Research said that the high-tech giant was wasting shareholder money on climate initiatives, Cook responded by saying that Apple is a concerned with all of its stakeholders, which means being an environmental steward.

And just this week, ExxonMobil agreed to inform its shareholders as to how its business strategy would conform to a world where there would be greater restrictions to carbon releases. Similarly, institutional investors also forcedFirstEnergyFirstEnergy to rethink its electricity generation mix, with the utility agreeing in January that it would increase its transparency.

Just how the corporate world fuels its energy needs is a big question — just as it is for the developing world, which must satisfy its people and its enterprises. Going for the green may be the ideal long-range solution. But first we have to clean the fossil fuels we are using before we can potentially wean ourselves from them.

China has the world’s richest shale gas reserves. It just doesn’t have the wherewithal to get the stuff out of the ground. Should U.S. developers teach them how to fish or just sell them the product in the form of liquefied natural gas, which is slowly but surely happening? While contentious, natural gas has half the emissions as coal.

And, like it or not, since 2005 the United States has funneled about $8 billion into tools that would remove 90 percent of the coal-related toxins before they leave the smokestack. In the best case scenario, the carbon is captured and is either permanently buried underground or it is used to enhance oil recovery.

Without a doubt, this is hugely pricey and some would argue that such scarce resources should be going to advance the green energy evolution. But the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions that is a climate hawk is a realist and says that because global coal consumption is rising, countries ought to be expanding their research and development into better coal technologies.

In the United States, Duke Energy and Southern Company have gasification and carbon capture projects, respectively, while the collaborative FutureGen 2.0 will ultimately be able to do both. Coal gasification is here and now and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz says that carbon capture and burial may arrive by 2020.

“The world is going to burn a lot of coal whether we export shale drilling technologies or not, particularly because it will take many years for shale operations to scale up,” says Ted Nordhaus, chairman of the Breakthrough Institute in Oakland, Calif., in an interview. “So we should want new coal builds to be as clean and efficient as possible.”

He’s right: Some 80 percent of the world’s energy comes from coal, oil and natural gas and the Energy Information Administration says that number is not going to fall below 65 percent 25 years. In 2040, it says that coal will still make up 35 percent of the global electricity supply.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Reality is that, if CO2-driven climate change is a problem, it is a global problem, amenable only to a global solution. Sub-national, national and regional efforts might well be laudable, but they will also be ineffectual.

Reality is that the rate of global annual emissions of CO2 cannot be stabilized until the growth in the rate of global annual emissions ceases; and, the growth is occurring almost exclusively in Asia.

Reality is that the rate of global annual emissions of CO2 cannot be reduced until it is first stabilized.

Reality is that the concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere cannot be reduced until the rate of global annual emissions is reduced to zero.

Reality is that the technology required to maintain the economic status of the developed countries and to maintain economic development in the developing countries, while reducing CO2 emissions to zero, is not broadly and economically available.

I believe we currently find ourselves in the situation of attempting to begin vast programs with half-vast ideas. That is not a comfortable situation; and, it almost always results in unsatisfying results and unintended consequences.

There is a need for candor regarding the percentage by which GHG emissions must be reduced and the time frame over which the reduction must occur to avoid “climategeddon”. Since we are purportedly dealing with “settled science”, this information is surely available. This information is essential to guiding investment decisions and required rates of return on investment in future major technology projects, such as the development of natural gas production, transmission and distribution infrastructure in China. The >$100 trillion which would be required to completely “green” the global economy would be very difficult to raise if it would not be possible to recover the investment, plus a reasonable return.

———–” And, like it or not, since 2005 the United States has funneled about $8 billion into tools that would remove 90 percent of the coal-related toxins before they leave the smokestack. In the best case scenario, the carbon is captured and is either permanently buried underground or it is used to enhance oil recovery.”————-

90% recovery—-at how much cost to efficiency? The truth is, efficiency is so much lowered and so much more coal is used, almost nothing is gained in the long run—-except that coal producers sell a LOT more coal. Why on earth did you THINK the coal industry was making such a fuss and spending so much money to promote “Clean Coal”? Because if they can convince people that such a mythical creature actually exists—-they stand to make enormous profits!

The truth is, there is no free lunch, there is no “Clean Coal” and no matter HOW much you try to clean up smokestacks and make them clean and pretty—-coal STILL comes from strip mines, and STILL produces mountains of soot and ash.

Clean Coal is like putting lip stick on a wart hog—-in the end, you are still kissing a wart hog.

The archaeologists are clear about it that the Earth has been a frozen ice ball with CO2 above 600 ppm and a baking hot house with CO2 below 100 ppm so CO2 levels are NOT the ONLY determinant of global climate. BUT… this “natural” event has been seized upon by the communists, socialists and Marxists to try and scare humanity into accepting a big, central government, tyrannical, innovation crushing, living standard level lowering one world government. My proof is that all of what they claim are the “best” ways to reduce CO2 emissions are things that advance the principles of Marxism as laid out in the Communist Manifesto. Their ideas:

1. Tax carbon (either directly or indirectly through “cap and trade” schemes) and use the money to expand welfare programs. Those in the USA who support these want to use most of the tax money to “shield the poor from the higher prices” with programs that make more individuals more dependent upon government. Result, 99% of the population keeps right on polluting. (Not tax carbon and use ALL the money to fund a new “Manhattan Project” to find non-carbon forms of energy production and better forms of power distribution.) 2. Have government make the direct decision about who can and who can’t own and use private transportation. (It is one of the basic tenets of Marxism that if government controls the ability of the populace to move around, then government can prevent revolutions.) 3. Force everyone (except the “poor”) to pay for “smart” (remote controlled) utility meters so government can decide what their environmental comfort will be and if and how much of these services you can use. (Lest we forget, in Stalinist Russia, a Marxism based regime, the local party boss controlled the valves and fuse boxes in the basements of the Government apartment blocks and anyone that complained about the government found themselves shivering in the dark sometimes without even cold running water.) 4. Stop the sale or severely tax meat, especially beef, since cattle are a major source of methane. (Again it is a major tenet of Marxism that by controlling how much and what kind of food the population can get, you can prevent revolts.)

China is moving as fast as they can towards natural gas and nuclear power. They don’t have a natural resource supply problem, they have generation and distribution problems. They are building nuclear reactors and have been building out their natural gas distribution network, that have concentrated in the most smog ridden cities. Consumers and businesses burn coal, in addition to power plants, so they need to get natural gas piped to them, which in not an easy tack in 10 century old cities that have populations in the millions now. China is moving quickly, they are building out high speed rail and building a regional airport network, for several cities with populations over a million, that have never had airports, as we know them. China has been going through their industrial revolution, not unlike the United States went through a century or so earlier. Our smoke stacks are gone, as are Europe’s and China’s will go away too. The Chinese standard of living has skyrocketed since they opened up their markets after taking possession of Hong Kong and they have made major strides, in every area. They are even the largest consumer of gold and physical gold has been moving from West to East in increasing volumes.. Because of the size of their population, they know they need to be more efficient, in every way and are well on their way. China has evolved immensely and is still evolving rapidly.

The Chinese have been putting off “ponying up the money” to help US Companies develop “Clean Coal” technologies for far too long and now they need cleaner technology yesterday…

Instead of each Country trying to profit by out-foxing its neighbors, it is time for the big industrial Countries to join together and FIGHT POLLUTION because what happens in China does not stay in China; we all are on the same Planet and must breathe the same air!

Just like the ISS, if developed Countries all agreed to share their environmental technology, which ever technology was found to be the cleanest, could be utilized everywhere, until something better is discovered.

Mankind needs clean air and clean water to survive; so despite what BIG Corporations say to the contrary, all Countries should share our dwindling resources instead of just making things worse for us by being greedy!

RE: “”In the United States, Duke Energy and Southern Company have gasification and carbon capture projects, respectively, while the collaborative FutureGen 2.0 will ultimately be able to do both. Coal gasification is here and now and U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz says that carbon capture and burial may arrive by 2020.

Both of these Companies have a track record for SPILLS and are not loved by the Environmentalists, so why should we trust them to do whats best for mankind when they are focused on making record profits?

All projects in the future should require large bonds that would “hold these BIG Companies feet to the fire” should anything BAD happen! Yes, it would make doing business a bit more expensive for them but then perhaps their entire industry would also focus on Safety (instead of JUST profits) and being a better steward for our environment!

One thing we cannot afford to happen is for these same BIG Companies being allowed to pollute the USA, because our State and Governmental Regulators (like the EPA) are being told to look the other way by politicians friendly to these Big Industry donors who can change our Environmental laws to make them more business friendly.

Here are two examples of Government Regulators “solving” Environmental problems with paperwork changes to laws that in reality only make things less healthy for all of US:

GaryD RE: “China is moving as fast as they can towards natural gas and nuclear power”

China is also putting their future economic welfare on the line but not phasing out Nuclear ASAP. Each day they wait is another day that a Fukushima-Type nuclear accident can happen to them just like it did to the Japanese. Fukushima proved that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7 and China is no different, especially considering each of these nuclear power plants are huge targets that can be attacked by Anti-Chinese forces.

As things are now China, Japan , France, the UK, South Korea and yes, even the USA are pushing Nuclear Power upon its citizens in order to protect their nuclear industries.

The odds are against all of them remaining safe during the next 40 to 50 years! Remember since even though Fukushima odds of having a meltdown were one in 10,000 or more years, 3 reactor meltdown occurred in the same week!

Then there is the BIG issue of what to do with the mountains of radioactive nuclear waste, something that the nuclear industry want not to discuss since the truth is that there are N☢ good solutions, despite futuristic hopes of somehow using some of the radioactive material, while the rest remains poisonous to mankind for generations, if not forever!!

There has to a be a balance as we shift from fossil fuels to renewables. If China is pedaling hard to move away from coal and push to natural gas and nuclear then why not help to clean up their coal emissions until they can move to cleaner fuels/energy sources? There is just no way to flip a switch and fix the problem. There has to be a phased approach that meets the needs of the users of electricity, and the need to move away from fossil fuels. I would aim for scrubbing the emissions coming out of the coal plants, look at the tech from Ohio State and what Duke Energy is doing with IGCC, and at the same time work to install renewable energy sources. To fix the problem you have to have a multi-faceted strategy to bridge the gap between fossil and renewable or it won’t work because we are all addicted to electricity.